lupercal wrote: barracuda wrote: lupercal wrote:
And from a 12/14 article:
Following the shooting, Police were "questioning a handcuffed suspect in connection with the Newtown school shooting," the Connecticut Post tweeted. A witness told Jany that a man "was led out of the woods by police in handcuffs." http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-ho ... an-2012-12
I'm guessing this is the culprit, also published on the 14th:
Chris Manfredonia, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the school, was heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.
He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher.
Incidentally, why isn't c2w hounding barracuda about his libelous assertions? C2w, perhaps can you explain this?
Because it's not libelous to assert that someone was heading to Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of the shooting to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur, following which he ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police, then later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher.
The word "culprit", by itself isn't libelous, when -- for example -- no reasonable reader could possibly imagine that it meant anything more than "the guy you're thinking of" or "the guy you're referring to,"
I don't actually think any word is. But I don't know. I've never considered the question.
What made the Rodia piece you posted different, you may be wondering?
Well. By asserting that he's tied to both the car and (via the merging of his identity with Manfredonia's) to the scene while linking to your own post stating...
lupercal wrote:Whatever this was, it wasn't an unintended spree, you can rest assured of that
....as well as to the Spitfirelist post, which begins...
In our last post on this tragic topic, we addressed the possibility that the Newtown, CT shooter had help. In particular, the question of the identity and potential involvement of a man in “camo pants” and a dark jacket that was taken into the custody. Another local report stated that police took a man into custody that was seen leaving the school in order to determine of he had any role in the shooting or was just coincidentally walking into the school at the same time.
...you're clearly suggesting he was involved in the shooting. And no reasonable reader would think anything else. Because there's no other possible interpretation. That's what you meant.
Therefore, as I wrote to you this morning, wrt the Spitfirelist post::
The article is libel per se, meaning: "No matter what, it's libelous, including if it's true." Because you're implicating him in a felony on less of a basis than you'd need to have to make that non-actionable by a factor of approximately infinity. So even if it were right, you would have been acting with reckless disregard for the truth while saying something highly defamatory.
But just forget that. Never mind whether it was libel. Because as I also wrote to you this morning...
"lupercal wrote: Oh baloney. Per advanced search, your first mention of Ryan Lanza was on page 19 of this thread, in a completely unrelated context, and your first mention in this context was last Tuesday, Jan. 22, in response to concerns raised by Mac, and surprise, you're defending "LE" and NBC, not they guy they slimed:
If you can understand why LE and NBC were sliming Ryan Lanza when they rushed to publicly name him as a suspect for no better reason than that they stumbled across his name in close proximity to the event, you should be able to understand why that's what it is when you and Spitfirelist do it to Rodia. Because it's exactly the same. And it exposed him to exactly the same shit that LE/NBC exposed Ryan Lanza to.
....it was also just a slimy fucking thing to do.
And I know that you're better than that.
I guess I'll reply as required if this keeps going on and on and on. But I really hope it doesn't And personally, I have nothing more to say about it. I just wanted to make the point for the reasons I've already given. That's it.